Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

I believe that the Big 10 network has announced that D* is planning on putting this on the Total Choice level of programming.

From the Big 10 netowork website:

Q: Will I be able to get the Big Ten Network from my current cable system or satellite provider?

A: All cable and satellite systems throughout the U.S. have the opportunity to place the Big Ten Network on their most widely available level of service. We already have signed deals with DirecTV and AT&T that ensure the Big Ten Network is on their basic level of service (Total Choice for DirecTV). If you subscribe to either of these services, the network is already part of your basic package, and you'll be able to turn it on the minute we launch. In addition to DirecTV and AT&T, we have over 40 deals with local cable operators, all of which call for the network to be carried on their basic cable package at no extra cost to consumers

I think the fees from these niche sports networks are getting nuts. For the Big Ten Network, DirecTV will be paying about $50 Million per year. There have got to be better things for them to spend their money on.

DTV agreed to this when owned by News Corp (since the Big Ten Network is 49% owned by News Corp). I would hope if they had to make the deal today, they would put the channel in the sports package, rather than pay for everyone to have it.

I knew that BTN would be carried in Total Choice, but does that also include the overflow channels (when there are multiple games at the same time)? I'm hoping you won't need Sports Pack to get the additional games.

Anyway, ESPN and other channels (like MASN), the alternates are included.

Yeah there will be overflows. The first 3 weeks they are carrying 5-6 games.

What a surprise!!! Jackasses in Congress are involved again!!

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell said Monday he was concerned about the ability of fans to watch Big Ten sporting events on a new television network debuting this summer.

Dingell, D-Mich., wrote Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany with questions about the Big Ten Network, which is expected to launch sometime in August.

The congressman said many constituents have expressed worries about being able to watch University of Michigan football games this season because none of the state's cable systems carry the network.

Dan Sholtis
"The Raiders will be back. I have unshakable confidence, the will to win, and I just know that the fire that burns brightest in this building is the will to win. And we will win. We will win."---Al Davis. Rest In Peace, Al

I agree that Congress should focus on more pressing issues than the Big 10 Network. Unfortunately, Rep Dingell is from Detroit and is getting pressure from all the UofM fans to make sure they can see the football games since some are slated to be on the Big 10 network and not locally over the air.

Since BTN is going to cost, according to the article, $1.10 for subscriber in the BT area and $0.10 elsewhere and that I have no interest in it but I'll have that money pulled out of my pocket just because I want to see other channels, some oversight by Congress would be welcome. Not that this is going to happen, but I would really like to see Congress stop this legalize robbery.

Since BTN is going to cost, according to the article, $1.10 for subscriber in the BT area and $0.10 elsewhere and that I have no interest in it but I'll have that money pulled out of my pocket just because I want to see other channels, some oversight by Congress would be welcome. Not that this is going to happen, but I would really like to see Congress stop this legalize robbery.

Not to venture too far off topic, but isn't this the business model for the cable industry and the exact reason why a la cart pricing won't work? If I pay $70/month for expanded basic and get 75 channels, realistically I only ever watch 20-25 of those channels in a given month. I'm helping cover the cost for the other 50-55 channels so others can enjoy them. If the cable companies offered a la cart pricing where the consumer could choose to pay only for the 20-25 channels that he/she wants, the economics of the entire industry will implode (or the price per sub will go up so that the consumer ends up paying a lot more per channel than they do now).

Think of your cable bill like a tax. You pay $X per month for Y number of channels. You may only watch a fraction of the channels, but the fact that you pay for all of them helps support them and makes it economically possible for them to exist. Just like every one of your tax dollars does not go to a government program that you directly benefit from, your cable bill acts the same way.

mc -- but that is also why cable companies have pricing tiers. The channels with the broadest appeal are on lower-priced tiers and channels with more limited appeal and higher costs are on higher-priced or specialty tiers.

So if I want CSTV or ESPN-U, I need to purchase the DirecTV Sports Pack. At such a high cost and mostly limited regional appeal, it would make sense to put BTN in the sports package too.

What is Congress objecting to? Free enterprise? There is no exclusivity here. DirecTV is carrying it without subjecting the customer to an increase. Why can't the cable companies. Whiners.

Here Comcast hiked rates by $2 for MASN but DirecTV didn't. I think Congress should investigate how a near-monopoly has to raise rates to pay for product. Sounds like they have some cash-flow issues.

Thats easy...the reason is because Comcrap has Congress by the balls. They all subscribe to Comcrap for one. For another Im willing to bet that Comcast has strong lobbyists....

Dan Sholtis
"The Raiders will be back. I have unshakable confidence, the will to win, and I just know that the fire that burns brightest in this building is the will to win. And we will win. We will win."---Al Davis. Rest In Peace, Al

Unfortunately, Rep Dingell is from Detroit and is getting pressure from all the UofM fans to make sure they can see the football games since some are slated to be on the Big 10 network and not locally over the air.

If the cable companies offered a la cart pricing where the consumer could choose to pay only for the 20-25 channels that he/she wants, the economics of the entire industry will implode (or the price per sub will go up so that the consumer ends up paying a lot more per channel than they do now).

Just one last comment because this discussion doesn't belong here.Thank you for repeating the false information that the media industry is spreading. They do not need to pay lobbyists as long as their own customers believe anything they say and support them.

Just one last comment because this discussion doesn't belong here.Thank you for repeating the false information that the media industry is spreading. They do not need to pay lobbyists as long as their own customers believe anything they say and support them.

Actually think about it this way. If we are all paying to D* and D* pays the channel say $1 per subscriber, then that channel will receive 16 million from D*. Now lets go to A-La-Carte pricing. Lets say that ESPN only gets 5 million customer's to subscribe to it. Then they are going to want to raise the price to $3 or $4 for their channels. Now add that to ABC.... and now we are paying $100 for 30 channels instead of $50 for 140.

I think the fees from these niche sports networks are getting nuts. For the Big Ten Network, DirecTV will be paying about $50 Million per year. There have got to be better things for them to spend their money on.

DTV agreed to this when owned by News Corp (since the Big Ten Network is 49% owned by News Corp). I would hope if they had to make the deal today, they would put the channel in the sports package, rather than pay for everyone to have it.

so if your 50M per year number is correct, and there are approximately 15M subscribers over 12 months, works out to $0.28 per month.

Now add that to ABC.... and now we are paying $100 for 30 channels instead of $50 for 140.

What you do not realize is that you already pay $50 for 20 channels (the ones that average user actually watch). Only there are people who pay $50 for 20 channels that cost $20 and people who pay $50 for 20 channels that cost $70. Is that fair?

It would be interesting to go through the channels I recieve and categorize them under watch frequently, watch rarely, and never watch. Is there a place I can see the carriage fees for each channel? Then I can add the total carriage fees for my frequent+rarely channels, add an overhead figure for DTV, and see if I'm getting more or less than I pay for.

I don't think there is. It is a well guarded secret because every system can have a different with a channel and they don't want to disclose it. In reality I think they keep it secret because if subscribers would know what they pay for some channels there would be an uprising.